Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV49195, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49195    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 29

Lynn Steinberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial and related deadlines is granted. Trial is continued to April 24, 2023.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.  (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

Other relevant considerations may include: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; [¶] (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [¶] (3) The length of the continuance requested; [¶] (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; [¶] (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; [¶] (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; [¶] (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; [¶] (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; [¶] (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [¶] (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and [¶] (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”  (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

Discussion

As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s reply is untimely and should be disregarded.

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.   (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc.  (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the reply. 

Defendant moves to continue trial, arguing good cause exists as it requires additional time to complete discovery. Defendant was forced to file motions to compel further responses despite extensive meet and confer efforts. The IDC is set for November 16, 2022 and the motions to compel further responses are scheduled for November 21, 2022. Defendant argues he has been diligent in litigating this matter, and Defense counsel served written discovery on January 28, 2022. To date, plaintiff has not provided full verified written responses to the first set of discovery and defendant has motions to compel set for November. Defense counsel propounded further discovery in July 2022. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s counsel served meritless objections and counsel is attempting to meet and confer to forgo filing additional motions. Because Plaintiff failed to provide written discovery responses, defense counsel was unable to move forward with plaintiff’s deposition. Therefore, it is unclear if plaintiff will require an independent medical examination at this time. The present trial date does not allow Defendant the opportunity to obtain outstanding discovery.

The Court finds that there is good cause for continuing the trial date. Although this would be the second continuance, discovery is not yet complete. Plaintiff argues she will be prejudiced by a trial continuance because she is 72 years old and postponed her previously scheduled five-week trip to Zimbabwe, where she was born and raised, in reliance on this case proceeding to trial on December 20, 2022. Plaintiff argues she was supposed to leave the week of Thanksgiving 2022 and return to the United States on December 31, 2022, but she canceled her trip to be here for her trial on December 20, 2022. However, it is unclear how Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a continuance as Plaintiff does not claim she is facing health issues that make time of the essence. Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff had to cancel a trip is not the kind of prejudice the Court finds relevant to this case. Thus, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to April 24, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial and related deadlines is GRANTED. Trial is continued to April 24, 2023. Discovery cut-off and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.